They have their reasons, but doing this pushes the locus of discussion and action to the place where work happens fastest: inside the company. That means that the interests of FB engineers drive the project; in other words, not open.
As an outsider and frequent consumer of some high profile open source projects 'owned' by Big Tech Companies I get the feeling that this same thing happens everywhere.
It probably does make good business sense but from out here it's a little odd.
Not all of them. Square doesn't quite meet the bar for the top tier, but I can confirm that nobody gets special treatment for the open source work I'm involved with. It's easier to get face time with maintainers, sure, but you have no special access to the external project.
Comments
As an outsider and frequent consumer of some high profile open source projects 'owned' by Big Tech Companies I get the feeling that this same thing happens everywhere.
It probably does make good business sense but from out here it's a little odd.
Not all of them. Square doesn't quite meet the bar for the top tier, but I can confirm that nobody gets special treatment for the open source work I'm involved with. It's easier to get face time with maintainers, sure, but you have no special access to the external project.